106
submitted 7 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Archived copies of the article: web.archive.org archive.today

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's not "losing momentum" because those pledges were always lies. It's the corporate equivalent of "I'll get to it when I get to it". We never had that momentum in the first place, and we won't unless the force of law with actual consequences makes it happen. Bulldoze every company that emits CO2 and doesn't fix it.

[-] StaticFalconar@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The act of bulldozing emits CO2

[-] Nepenthe@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

I would be very concerned if one did not at least break even, but we can always bulldoze the bulldozing company at the end.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

Even with a business to make money, how do they not understand that if humanity does not thrive, they stop making money? I can't wrap my head around this.

[-] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 23 points 7 months ago

It helps if you're a sociopath. Bonus points if your vision of the future begins and ends with the next quarter's bonus targets.

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago

Also bonus points if everyone else is behaving the same way, and extra bonus points if thinking and acting on climate change is hard and depressing.

Basically the nature of the problem is precisely the sort of thing humanity is collectively very bad at (think of the pandemic, which IMO didn't need to happen and we're lucky biomedical science was there to save us with vaccines). We're especially bad at it in this neoliberal culture too.

Basically we're embarrassing ourselves in front of future generations like all of the atrocious dumb shit that's happened in the past.

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 7 points 7 months ago

Because they literally cannot see further than next quarter.

[-] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It’s playing the odds. Can I make enough money to keep me comfortable?

Nobody (with money) cares if the world spontaneously catches fire in 200 years. It literally won’t affect them.

Can “I” (with money) make enough to mitigate the results of climate change before everyone else (without money) suffers from it?

How much money is that? Well “I” don’t know, I better make as much as possible. Hopefully I can make money faster than the world burns.

[-] hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 months ago

It’s because of how they are financed and evaluated. Their investors/financiers expect a constant return on investment as well as yearly financial growth to justify their high stock values. It doesn’t matter if they have big enough or are already producing max profit. Gotta keep growing to match inflation which is also tied to growth. All powering a runaway train in which there is no conductor.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Name a time it "had momentum" all people did was just say they were gonna do something about it collect votes then didn't do shit.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

I would say they put 100x more money and effort into greenwashing and marketing their so-called “environmental friendliness” than they ever put into actually fighting climate change. Not a doubt in my mind.

[-] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah it was a political grift all along. Kinda crazy that China and India are doing the most shit about it out of necessity.

[-] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

All these businesses know they are doing the wrong thing but the CEOs answer to share holders and shareholders only focus on profit. Governments are the only way to fix these big societal issues because any business who is early to make costly changes that affect profit in the short term will get killed in the market. If the government mandates changes, all businesses have to comply. No business has to stick it’s neck out to change, it’s an industry expense they all must make. Businesses hate risk without profit growth potential. The capitalist system just isn’t designed for these types of changes without a government guiding hand.

[-] kalkulat@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Seems to me that 1) no one (who doesn't realize what we're up against) wants to be the one to give up anything. 2) Many are hoping that tech will come up with some magical cure. 3) Nobody has really spelled out well - for big audiences - what the benefits will be.

[-] WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nothing is more human than procrastination and denial in the face of existential threat sadly.

[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Pledges......Not worth the keyboard the PR department types them on.

this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
106 points (97.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
417 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS